Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 250

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Optimizing techniques to capture and extract environmental DNA for detection and quantification of fish

Eichmiller, Jessica J., Miller, Loren M., Sorensen, Peter W.·2016·Molecular Ecology Resources

Abstract

Few studies have examined capture and extraction methods for environmental DNA (eDNA) to identify techniques optimal for detection and quantification. In this study, precipitation, centrifugation and filtration eDNA capture methods and six commercially available DNA extraction kits were evaluated for their ability to detect and quantify common carp (Cyprinus carpio) mitochondrial DNA using quantitative PCR in a series of laboratory experiments. Filtration methods yielded the most carp eDNA, and a glass fibre (GF) filter performed better than a similar pore size polycarbonate (PC) filter. Smaller pore sized filters had higher regression slopes of biomass to eDNA, indicating that they were potentially more sensitive to changes in biomass. Comparison of DNA extraction kits showed that the MP Biomedicals Fast DNA SPIN Kit yielded the most carp eDNA and was the most sensitive for detection purposes, despite minor inhibition. The MoBio PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit had the lowest coefficient of variation in extraction efficiency between lake and well water and had no detectable inhibition, making it most suitable for comparisons across aquatic environments. Of the methods tested, we recommend using a 1.5 μ m GF filter, followed by extraction with the MP Biomedicals Fast DNA SPIN Kit for detection. For quantification of eDNA, filtration through a 0.2–0.6 μ m pore size PC filter, followed by extraction with MoBio PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit was optimal. These results are broadly applicable for laboratory studies on carps and potentially other cyprinids. The recommendations can also be used to inform choice of methodology for field studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1755-0998.12421

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 250

Metadata

Authors
Eichmiller, J. J., Miller, L. M., & Sorensen, P. W.
Venue
Molecular Ecology Resources
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-05-18
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
56-68
ISSN
  • 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
  • 1755-0998
OpenAlex
W2059239800
Cited by
250
References
1
FWCI
11.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Optimizing techniques to capture and extract environmental DNA for detection and quantification of fish. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1755-0998.12421
The paper
Eichmiller, J. J., Miller, L. M., & Sorensen, P. W. (2016). Optimizing techniques to capture and extract environmental DNA for detection and quantification of fish. Molecular Ecology Resources. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12421

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.